Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
YES, this is what republicans should be talking about. Quit bitching about taxes on 2% of folks, and focus on the other 99% of the deficit problem.
I think, raise the social security and Medicare eligibility ages, and I think we should cut the defense budget in half.
Close all over seas bases, cut the number of admirals and generals.
I would not close all the overseas bases but I sure would put a serious dent in the 280+ bases we have in Germany, for cryin out loud.
Not that I have the time right now to discuss the numbers, but I have the time to question you: What has stopped you to be stuck on a belief that the proposal to solve deficit crisis is nothing more than rolling back tax cuts to Clinton Tax Rates for incomes above $250K per Simpson-Bowles recommendation?
I would like to see your response to that.
I was in favor of Simpson bowles. . M<y reasoning is for the last 2 years we have heard from Obama that taxing the rich is one step to solving the deficit. Juts have not heard about what to do after we tax the rich
I was in favor of Simpson bowles. . M<y reasoning is for the last 2 years we have heard from Obama that taxing the rich is one step to solving the deficit. Juts have not heard about what to do after we tax the rich
Forget Obama, because some of you have been raised to hate the man and you lose sight of the point in discussion, going all emotional. Let us focus on Simpson Bowles recommendations that you favor instead. Or, was that in past tense? (I ask, because I'm unsure if you flipped between then and now, for some reason). What changed, if anything?
Forget Obama, because some of you have been raised to hate the man and you lose sight of the point in discussion, going all emotional. Let us focus on Simpson Bowles recommendations that you favor instead. Or, was that in past tense? (I ask, because I'm unsure if you flipped between then and now, for some reason). What changed, if anything?
I was in favor of the entire package as it is then and now. I believe raising taxes alone is not the answer nor is cutting spending alone. I saw Simpson bowles and each side giving .
Here's what liberals keep tiptoeing around, your president, supposed Liberal icon Barack Obama, engages in expansion of the military industrial complex, and war on drugs, just like our previous Republican president.
I never said anything about Obama. It's not like I expect him to actually perform any of those budget cuts. I just said that's where cuts could be made.
The point that you make is a very good one. Obama is only supposedly a liberal. But at the end of the day just about every politician acts the same as the last one. There are exceptions, but mostly just more of the same. the only difference is in the sweet words they speak to their fan base, and the promises they make but neither party is actually interested in the betterment of the people. For me the only difference between democrat and republican is on the personal level with individuals who identify with either party.
The tax on 2% of the people is, in reality, another tax increase on the economy.
It doesn't matter where you insert the siphon tube, the effect is the same, less fuel for the economy, and more fuel for coercive, destructive, counter-productive government.
WAKE UP.
Bull****. The cbo report the other day and others prove they will have no effect on the economy.
I was in favor of the entire package as it is then and now. I believe raising taxes alone is not the answer nor is cutting spending alone. I saw Simpson bowles and each side giving .
Indeed, Simpson-Bowles recommendation included a near 1:1 spending cuts to increasing tax revenues ($2.9 Trillion and $2.6 Trillion, respectively). Whereas, the President's proposal (on the table since September 2011, BTW, and some of it already implemented as a part of Budget Control Act) includes nearly as much in spending cuts but lower expectations on tax revenues ($1.6 Trillion instead of $2.6 Trillion).
So, the only thing the President isn't doing to your liking is, not increasing taxes... enough. The next question is, why did the republicans vote overwhelmingly against Simpson-Bowles, if they liked it?
Indeed, Simpson-Bowles recommendation included a near 1:1 spending cuts to increasing tax revenues ($2.9 Trillion and $2.6 Trillion, respectively). Whereas, the President's proposal (on the table since September 2011, BTW, and some of it already implemented as a part of Budget Control Act) includes nearly as much in spending cuts but lower expectations on tax revenues ($1.6 Trillion instead of $2.6 Trillion).
So, the only thing the President isn't doing to your liking is, not increasing taxes... enough. The next question is, why did the republicans vote overwhelmingly against Simpson-Bowles, if they liked it?
The way i have read simpson bowles is a 2-1 spending cuts to revenue hike.
Built off a baseline called the “Plausible Baseline”, which closely resembled the Congressional Budget Office’s Alternative Fiscal Scenario, the plan achieved roughly $2 in spending cuts to $1 in revenue increases. The Plausible Baseline built off of a current law baseline by assuming that the 2001/2003 tax cuts were extended except for those above $250,000, the estate tax and Alternative Minimum Tax would continue at 2009 levels, the Medicare physicians pay freeze would continue and war spending would decrease based on current administration policy.
The final plan was broken down into six major components (savings are 2012-2020):
1. $1,661 billion of discretionary spending cuts by putting in place discretionary spending caps into law lower than what is projected to be spent.
2. $995 billion in additional revenue with $785 billion in new revenues from tax reform by lowering income and corporate tax rates and broadening the base by eliminating tax expenditures. An additional $210 billion in revenue is also raised in other revenue by switching to the Chained-CPI and an increase in the federal gasoline tax
3. $341 billion in federal health care savings by reforming the Sustainable Growth Rate for Medicare, repeals the CLASS Act (which has already happened), increase Medicare cost sharing, reform health-care tort, change provider payments, increase drug rebates and establishes a long-term budget for total federal health-care spending after 2020 to GDP + 1 percent.
4. $215 billion in other mandatory savings by moving to the Chained CPI for all inflation-indexed programs, reform the military and civil service retirement system, reduce farm subsidies, reduce student loans and various other reforms.
5. $238 billion in Social Security reform, to be used to ensure the program is sustainably solvent in the infinite horizon by slowing benefit growth for high and medium-income workers, increase the early and normal retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075 by indexing it to longevity, index cost of living adjustments to the Chained-CPI, include newly hired state and local workers after 2020, increase the payroll tax cap to cover 90 percent of wages by 2050 and creates a new minimum and old-age benefit.
6. Budget Process Reforms by creating discretionary spending caps and caps total federal revenue at 20 percent of GDP.
An additional $673 billion is saved due to lower projected spending interest payments as a result from lower deficits
the question i have are the saving in health care was based pre Obama care are they stillplausible.
I like SS reform
And spending caps.
I also agree with lowering corproate tax rates.
I have not looked up the final vote as to how many dems ansd republican supported it. Alli can speak for is myself I supported it and wrote Cornyn and granger and hutchison to support it
The way i have read simpson bowles is a 2-1 spending cuts to revenue hike.
That is the President's plan. Here is a pretty good explanation of the Simpson-Bowles Plan. Also note that Simpson-Bowles proposal was based on 8-year plan (2013-2020, with little effect from 2012) as opposed to the President's plan which is over 10-years.
Quote:
I have not looked up the final vote as to how many dems ansd republican supported it. Alli can speak for is myself I supported it and wrote Cornyn and granger and hutchison to support it
Simpson-Bowles got support of a whopping 16 republicans in the House when it was time to vote on it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
